The state of the Protestants of Ireland under the late King James's government in which their carriage towards him is justified, and the absolute necessity of their endeavouring to be freed from his government, and of submitting to their present Majesties is demonstrated.

CHAP. I. Shewing, that it is lawful for one Prince to interpose between another Prince and his Subjects when he uses them cruelly, or endeavours to enslave or destroy them.

1. THIS Assertion has been made so clear in several Discourses of late, that I shall not need insist much on it. A few Arguments will be sufficient for this place.

2. First therefore it may be lawful for one Prince to in∣terpose between another Prince and his Subjects, because he may have an Interest in that People and Government, to de∣fend which Interest he may lawfully concern himself, and pre∣vent their Ruin by a War. Such an Interest is Consanguinity, Community of Religion, but more especially a Prospect of Succession in the Government; for in that Case, if the Peo∣ple be destroyed or weakened, the Inheritance is the worse, and he is injured in his hopes which often are very valuable. The present Possessor, who is only an Usufructuary or Tenant for Life, by destroying the Inheritance gives a just provocation to him who is in Reversion, to cross his design by opposing him by all means that are in his power; and this Argument is the stronger, if there be just reason to suspect that there are any unlawful means used to defeat him of his Succession; which alone were sufficient to justifie their present Majesties Interpo∣sition between the late King and his Subjects.

3. But secondly, the same may be lawful, if the Destruction of a People by their Prince, be only a step and degree to the destruction of a Neighbouring People. In that Case there is all the Reason in the World, that the Prince and People so threatened, should prevent their own Ruin, by timely inter∣posing in behalf of their Neighbours, and by forcing their King to desist from his Injustice and Violence against his own Subjects, tho it cost a War to compass it, if there appear no

other means to do it. And this is not only Charity to them, but a point of Prudence which every Prince ows to himself. Now if we consider the State of Europe at that time, the growing Power of France, and how much the late King was in the French Interests, it will clearly appear, that the Measures he took with his Subjects must have been fatal to all Europe, espe∣cially to the Protestant Interest, which he almost openly declared that he designed to destroy: and therefore it concerned all Eu∣rope, more especially Holland, who lay nearer to Destruction, to interpose in time, and nip these Designs in the beginning; which they and all Europe saw would have ended in their Destruction, as soon as the Ruin of the Protestants in England and Ireland was accomplished: and the present Confederacy shews this to be the general Sense of all the States and Princes in Europe, as well of the Roman Catholicks, as of the Protestants, the Pope himself not excepted: so that this which has been done to King James, is not to be looked on as the single act of their present Majesties, or of the People of England, but of all Europe, as the only means to oppose the intolerable En∣croachments or the French King and his Faction.

4. Thirdly, the same is lawful by the common Rights of Humanity and Charity which are due to the distressed: If I see a Man about to kill or destroy another, tho I have no authority over either, or concern with them, yet Humanity obliges me to succour and rescue the oppressed; and tho it be a Son that is thus wronged by his Father, yet while the Father proceeds with Cruelty and apparent Injustice, it alters not the Case, or makes it any thing more unlawful for me to afford relief, or for him to desire and accept it, tho the Father should take it so ill as to engage me in a quarrel to the loss of his life. Much more is it lawful for Princes to interpose with a Neigh∣bor-Prince, when they see him cruelly and injustly oppress his Subjects; and there is much more reason for those Subjects to desire and accept of the kind Offers of such a Deliverer, than for a Son to accept it against his Father.

5. Fourthly, God seems purposely to have divided the World into several Principalities and Dominions, and ballanced them a mong themselves, that there might be a Refuge for the oppressed and afflicted; and that if one King should turn Tyrant, or endea∣vour

to destroy his People, the others might interpose and stop his Hands; and that the fear of being deserted by his Sub∣jects in such a Quarrel, might oblige every one to preserve their Love and Affection by Justice and good Government. I have reason to believe, that the Primitive Church, and especially S. Cyprian, was of this* 1.1 opinion, for they give this Reason why the Church was not trusted to one, but to many Bishops; Saith S. Cyprian, Therefore the Body of Bishops is numerous, that if one be guilty of He∣resie, and dissipate the Flock, the rest may inter∣pose, and▪ rescue them out of his Hands. And sure the Argument is as strong for the number of Temporal as of Spiritual Governors, and the Necessity and Justice of their interposing with their Neighbor Princes, when they at∣tempt the Destruction of their People, is as great, as of a Bishops being chastised and re∣strained by his Fellow Bishops, when he at∣tempts to introduce Heresie.

6. Fifthly, This is agreeable to the Opinion of Christian Civilians and Casuists, for which I desire the Reader may con∣sult Grotius de Jure, &c. lib. 2. cap. 25. n. 8. where he tells us, That if it were granted, that Subjects might not take Arms law∣fully, even in the extremest necessity (which yet, saith he, I see is doubted by those who professedly defend the Power of Kings) it would not follow from thence but others might take Arms in their behalf. This he proves from Reason and Authority; and answers the Arguments brought against it. See more to the same purpose, lib. 2. cap. 20. S. 40. where he tells us, That it is so much more honorable to avenge the Injuries done to another than to our selves, by how much there is less danger, that the sense of anothers pain▪ should make us exceed in exacting such Revenge, than of our own, or byass our Judgment.

7. Sixthly, The same appears to be lawful from the Practice of Christian Princes who are celebrated in Histories for doing it; this was the Case of Constantine the Great, and the Cause of his Quarrel to Maxentius, whom for his Tyranny over the Romans, Constantine invaded, and was received as their De∣liverer,

when he had slain him. The Cause of his invading Licinius his Brother in Law, was of the like nature, against whom he commenced a War for his persecuting the Christians; and after he had overcome him, he was received by the Chri∣stians in Licinius's room, and celebrated by the Church and Historians of that time, as a most holy and generous Cham∣pion in the Cause of Christ. When the King of Persia perse∣cuted the Christians, the same Prince threatened him with a War, in case he did not desist; and no doubt but he would have been as good as his word, if the Persian King had not complyed. We may observe the same to have been done in the Cause of the Orthodox against the Arrians, by Constantine the Younger, Son of Constantine the Great; who threatened his elder Brother Constantius with a War, if he did* 1.2 not desist from persecuting the Catholick Bishops, and restore Athanasius to his Bishoprick of Alexan∣dria: that great and holy Man accepted of this Mediation, and was restored by it; which he would not have done, if he had judged it unlawful. The same was practised by King Pepin and Charles the Great against the Lombards; and by all the Princes of Europe in favour of the Christians oppressed by the Turks in the holy War. Queen Elizabeth did the same for Holland: King James for the Prince Palatine: and King Charles the First for Rochel; and Bishop Laud, who certainly understood the Principles of our Church, encouraged both: and it is one of the greatest Blemishes of the Reign of King Charles the Second, that he suffered the French King to pro∣ceed so far in destroying his Protestant Subjects, without inter∣posing in their behalf; which if he had effectually done, he had either prevented it, or got an opportunity of rendering his Reign glorious, and his Kingdom fa••e, by a War, which would in all probability have humbled that Monarch to the ad∣vantage of all Europe.

8. I know nothing that can be objected against this, except it be the peculiar Obligation that lies on us from the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance: which (tho it should be allowed lawful for a Foreign Prince to interpose) would yet make it ne∣cessary for us to fight for our own Prince. But to this I answer; 1. That those Oaths were made by us to the King, as Supreme

Governor of these Kingdoms, and while he continued such, they did oblige us, but by endeavouring to destroy us, he (as Grotius observes) in that very Act abdicated the Government; since an intention of Governing cannot consist with an intention of Destroying; and therefore in all equity we are absolved from Oaths made to him as Governor.

That this may not seem a new Doctrine, I would have the Reader observe, that I only transcribe the Learned Falkner in his Christian Loyalty, l. 1. c. 5. s. 2. n. 19. Such Attempts, saith he, of ruining, do ipso facto include a disclaiming the governing those Persos as Subjects, and consequently of being their Prince or King: and then the Expression of our publick Declaration and Acknow∣ledgment would still be secured, that it is not lawful upon any pre∣tence whatsoever to take Arms against the King.

9. But Secondly, No Oath of Allegiance doth oblige any Subject to assist his Prince in an ill Cause. If therefore a King should, against the Rules of Justice, attempt to destroy a Neigh∣bor Nation, his Subjects, who were convinced of this, ought not to fight for him in such a War; and if they ought not to assist him to oppress Foreigners, much less is it lawful for them to assist him to destroy themselves, or to fight against a Prince who comes to rescue them from Destruction intended against them; and if no Protestant Subject could lawfully fight for King James in his Quarrel against their present Majesties, it is manifest that he himself had thereby voided that Branch of the Oath of Allegiance, of fighting for him, by making the matter of it unlawful; he having brought the Nation into such a Condition, that at the same time they defended his Person, they must enable him to accomplish his destructive Designs a∣gainst them; which no Casuist will say they were obliged to do: They therefore that urge us with the Obligation of the Oaths of Allegiance, ought either to make it appear, that it was lawful for us to fight for him in an ill Cause, or else that it was not an ill Cause to help him to destroy his People. Or, Thirdly, That he had no such Design against us: none of which I have yet seen attempted in any Paper that has appeared in his Defence.

10. But Thirdly, As to us particularly in Ireland, his late Majesty King James and his Parliament here, by a formal Act,

did repeal and make void all former Acts that required the ten∣dering or taking those Oaths; and left not one legal standing Oath in force, whereby we or any other Subjects, besides Soldiers, were obliged to profess Subjection to* 1.3 him; therefore those Oaths being repealed and voided by the King's own express Act, how could he expect that we should look upon our selves to be bound or obliged by them? And indeed we must conclude from his Majesties consenting to repeal them, either that he de∣signed to release us from the peculiar Obligation arising from them, as too strict, or else that he did not design to depend on our Oaths for our Loyalty, and therefore laid them aside, as of no force to oblige us; either of which must proceed from an intention to destroy the ancient Government with which he was intrusted; and can signifie nothing less than that he did not intend to rule us, as his Predecessors did, or to de∣pend on those Obligations of Subjection which they judged proper for the Subjects of these Kingdoms to give their King; and that as he did not intend to keep his Coronation Oath to us, so he did not value our Oath of Allegiance to him, having left none that we know of in this Kingdom which any Law ob∣liges us to take.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Idcirco enim, frater carissime, copiosum corpus est Sacerdo∣tum, concordiae mu∣tuae glutino atque unitatis vinculo co∣pulatum; ut siquis e•• collegio nostro Haeresim facere & gregem Christi lace∣rare & vastare ten∣taverit, subveniant caeteri, & quasi pa∣stores utiles & mi∣sericordes, qui oves dominicas in gre∣gem colligant Cypri, Ep. 67. Pamelii.
• * 1.2

  Socrates, lib. 2. c. 22.
• * 1.3

  Acts of the late pretended Irish Par∣liament. C. 3.